Skip to main content

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater
(2020)

(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Written by Brian Duffield (who has turned director with forthcoming exploding high schooler flick Spontaneous) and Adam Cozad, Underwater mines the oft-explored subaquatic menace for material, going where Leviathan and Deepstar Six dredged up variable quantities and qualities of sinister marine life before. Here, a drilling operation in the Mariana Trench unleashes deadly terror, devastating the main mining station in the first five minutes and requiring six solitary survivors to try and make it to the surface – by walking across the ocean floor in order to access working escape pods – while dodging a menace that has taken a disliking to all things, well, not Cthulhu-spawned, by the looks of it.

Perhaps the biggest compliment you can pay the picture is that it’s at its most impressive during the opening stages, when there isn’t even a whiff of savage sea creatures. The initial breach of the station is a powerhouse in disaster movie escalation, as Kristen Stewart's Norah struggles to close hatches and make a bid for relative safety with a motley collection of stragglers. Pressure at such depths is the biggest enemy, as Mamoudou Athie discovers – it perhaps isn’t such a retro feature of the picture to relish that the African-American character is the first of the six to meet a grisly end – but anything involving closed spaces, claustrophobia and submergence comes a close second.

It’s also to Eubank’s credit that you’re very rarely conscious of Underwater being shot mostly dry-for-wet. Occasionally, he loses his sure grip on the rudder, with fairly ho-hum establishing shots and a sequence where Norah and Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel) become separated from couple Emily (Jessica Henwick) and Liam (John Gallagher Jr); this descends into a flurry of confused rendering and action geography (and evidently not intentionally so; it isn’t clear what is happening and to whom). Mostly, though, he’s able to ensure the charted course remains edge-of-the-seat.

The real problem, when it arises, is that the aquatic predators just aren’t very interesting or unique; there was probably more potential when the survivors were wondering if they might be up against a variety of sinister algae than the subsequent reveal that furious fish folk are after them. It’s also to Underwater’s detriment that Eubank decided (after the fact) that he was going to have a Lovecraftian uber-creature calling the shots on rocking the drilling joint. We’ve seen this variant design-wise so many times in the past few years that any sensible director would swear off going there, quite beside the fact that the bigger monster very rarely results in greater tension or higher stakes; more commonly, it leads to narrative burnout.

In terms of the cast, Stewart does well in the lead role, although I wouldn’t overstate the character integrity involved. The establishing of her pessimistic outlook on life, as opposed to her ex’s sunny side up viewpoint, is little more than a glib wrap around, one that just about gives motive to her ensuring those with something to live for – Emily and Liam – make it to the surface, but does nothing to make us invest in their safety (which is crucial in these movies).

Henwick provides Emily with a surplus of nervous energy, but a discussion about pet pooches doesn’t really ingrain her on the mind (or perhaps it does, since I remembered it), while Gallagher Jr makes flat-out zero impression, meaning his presence as a dead weight throughout (they’re stuck dragging his unconscious form around) is simply a chore. Cassel fares much better, but the calls of cliché require the captain to fall. Ditto for the wise-cracking Hudson type (TJ Miller, whose very presence destroys the integrity of the entire movie, according to some of Cancel Culture’s most ardent devotees, but they’d probably be best not watching any media at all, since some suspect party will inevitably be involved in its production somewhere along the line, even if they’re only allegedly suspect).

Like her former co-star Robert Pattison, Stewart has, until recently, charted a commendably marquee-shunning post-Twilight career path, seeking out indie flavours and interesting directors. This and Charlie’s Angels appear to be a conscious break with that. In particular, she seems set on andro chic branding herself here, frequently stripping down to her designer skimpies (surely in consort with Eubank, as she has enough sway over her career to call the shots in that regard). It’s the movie’s equivalent of Ripley cheesecake, only self-engineered. For little obvious reward, it seems, as on the evidence of this and Angels, no one’s much interested in her as a movie star. Which may not be a bad thing; Stewart should probably concentrate on the character path, only taking blockbuster roles when she really needs to.

As for Eubank, regardless of Underwater’s box office, it represents an effective calling card. He and cinematographer Bojan Bazelli (frequent collaborator with Gore Verbinski) have created a palpable environment of dank, dripping sets and claustrophobic intensity. Lovely pressure suit designs too. Give him a good screenplay (probably not one penned with his brother) and he’ll comfortably rise into the big leagues.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.